Carden v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
May 2010
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Burnaman v. Heaton · Overton v. Overton · 25 Ark. App. 221 - Kunz v. Jarnigan · Helms v. Helms · Van Donselaar v. Van Donselaar
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“) (emphasis added); United States v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.Supp. 1325, 1330 (S.D.Tex.1971); Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801, 803 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1585 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962); Carden v. McDonald, 69 Ark.App. 257 , 12 S.W.3d 643, 647 (2000) (“When [the settlement agreement] was dictated into the record of the hearing, it became valid and binding on all parties.”); Infante v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 608, 610 (E.D.Tex.1998) (applying Texas law) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.